↓ Skip to main content

Heart Failure Home Management Challenges and Reasons for Readmission: a Qualitative Study to Understand the Patient’s Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
Title
Heart Failure Home Management Challenges and Reasons for Readmission: a Qualitative Study to Understand the Patient’s Perspective
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4542-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Sevilla-Cazes, Faraz S. Ahmad, Kathryn H. Bowles, Anne Jaskowiak, Tom Gallagher, Lee R. Goldberg, Shreya Kangovi, Madeline Alexander, Barbara Riegel, Frances K. Barg, Stephen E. Kimmel

Abstract

Heart failure patients have high 30-day hospital readmission rates. Interventions designed to prevent readmissions have had mixed success. Understanding heart failure home management through the patient's experience may reframe the readmission "problem" and, ultimately, inform alternative strategies. To understand patient and caregiver challenges to heart failure home management and perceived reasons for readmission. Observational qualitative study. Heart failure patients were recruited from two hospitals and included those who were hospitalized for heart failure at least twice within 30 days and those who had been recently discharged after their first heart failure admission. Open-ended, semi-structured interviews. Conclusions vetted using focus groups. Semi-structured interviews with 31 patients revealed a combination of physical and socio-emotional influences on patients' home heart failure management. Major themes identified were home management as a struggle between adherence and adaptation, and hospital readmission as a rational choice in response to distressing symptoms. Patients identified uncertainty regarding recommendations, caused by unclear instructions and temporal incongruence between behavior and symptom onset. This uncertainty impaired their competence in making routine management decisions, resulting in a cycle of limit testing and decreasing adherence. Patients reported experiencing hopelessness and frustration in response to perceiving a deteriorating functional status. This led some to a cycle of despair characterized by worsening adherence and negative emotions. As these cycles progressed and distressing symptoms worsened, patients viewed the hospital as the safest place for recovery and not a "negative" outcome. Cycles of limit testing and despair represent important patient-centered struggles in managing heart failure. The resulting distress and fear make readmission a rational choice for patients rather than a negative outcome. Interventions (e.g., palliative care) that focus on methods to address these patient-centered factors should be further studied rather than methods to reduce hospital readmissions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Researcher 13 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 102 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 59 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 103 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,537,589
of 24,643,522 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,890
of 7,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,780
of 331,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#42
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,643,522 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.